Capital Punishment Fans

[Raeven]

Thank fuck this woman dodged a bullet. Almost literally.

This sort of thing is exactly why I am so on the fence about the death penalty. When you have cases with such unbelievably fragile testimonies and evidence and overall presentations that somehow result in a conviction, you're at high risk of instating state-sanctioned murder. In the case of, say, the durkadurka who gunned down 18 soldiers at Fort Hood, I want him dead so we can kick him in a hole and the victims of the families can just not have that kind of spectre of the guy who did it still lingering hovering over their heads, and because, frankly, with such overwhelming and obvious evidence, it's clear he's guilty and I don't want any kind of resources being spent to keep his useless ass alive.

The death penalty should only be under extreme and clear circumstances like that. For shit like this, hell-fucking-no. This woman should not have even been sent to prison, much less death row. What if the death penalty had actually been carried out?? Fuck!

Here are the problems with that, though. It means that better outcomes are weighted in favor of the clever defendant who is able to create doubt. Almost never are there witnesses to death penalty cases, and DNA evidence is much more scarce than many folks appreciate. Rarely are cases wonderfully cut and dried as they are portrayed on tee vee.

The Innocence Project has shown through its work and studies that we get it wrong on the death penalty one-sixth of the time. That's nearly two people out of ten who are wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death.

As for saving money, facts don't bear that out. It costs FAR more to try someone for the death penalty than to just toss their ass in a super-max and forget them for a lifetime.

Regard, too, the following: Many people labor under the misunderstanding that all those automatic appeals will catch any mistakes made at the trial court level. Untrue. The appellate process only ever examines a case to determine that the law was applied correctly. They never again examine the underlying facts of a case as they were established at the trial court level. So if new facts come to light, it is an Herculean effort on the part of a defense attorney to get the previous judgment set aside and a new hearing set to hear those new facts. Prosecutors are invested in their "win" records... judges don't like to learn they made a mistake. It's tough to do.

I'll add one more aspect to the issue that few people consider: What if you were one of the jurors who imposed a death verdict, and then, after the sentence was carried out some, oh, some 15 years later, let's say, facts came to light which proved that the defendant was innocent? How many more lives have been adversely affected by this erroneous judgment?

Eye witness testimony is famously unreliable, but juries eat it up. (Juries on the whole are fucked up, but that's another discussion for another day.) Even confessions are not necessarily trustworthy. I've seen cases where a detained person confessed because they were unduly coerced. Another case where the detainee didn't understand what they were doing (they were deaf, and there was no deaf interpreter present at the interrogation).

I worked as a judge's assistant for many years. I saw innocent people convicted more often than with which we as a society should be comfortable. There's a reason -- and much painful truth -- for that old saying, "It takes a good prosecutor to convict a guilty man. It takes a hell of a prosecutor to convict an innocent one."

I, too, was on the fence re the death penalty for years. I'm against it now, in full.

[Minimalist]

A number of states, I think most recently New Mexico, have abolished the death penalty simply because it is too expensive. Not the best reason in the world but I'll take it.

[Rahul]

I'm all for the death penalty. However, we keep getting the wrong people a lot of times. So, reluctantly, I cannot support it.

America's entire prison system is fucked. The percentage of Americans behind bars has skyrocketed since 1980. We throw people in jail more frequently and for much longer than other civilized countries. But politicians don't want to seem soft on crime so we'll lock your ass up over trivial shit for years and years. And then when you get out you won't be able to get a decent job ever again because you're an ex-con.

If you go to jail in the US you are fucked for life no matter how long you stay in.

[Captain Colostomy]

A number of states, I think most recently New Mexico, have abolished the death penalty simply because it is too expensive. Not the best reason in the world but I'll take it.

I'm not shilling for the death penalty, but how does expense factor? I would think another 30+ years of three hots and a cot would cost more than the needle and the damage done.*



*Obligatory Neil Young reference.

---

If you go to jail in the US you are fucked for life no matter how long you stay in.

...emphasis on 'fucked'.

[c172]

A number of states, I think most recently New Mexico, have abolished the death penalty simply because it is too expensive. Not the best reason in the world but I'll take it.

I'm not shilling for the death penalty, but how does expense factor? I would think another 30+ years of three hots and a cot would cost more than the needle and the damage done.*

I think when the two sides are figuring the expense of an execution, one side tends to include the appeals and other related processes as part of that cost. I suppose that's valid, but can't LWOP and other terms be appealed just as hard?

I think of expenses, too, but more related to the method. Here in California, the default is lethal injection, but the gas chamber is still an option.

Problem is, I'm pretty sure the gas chamber is in somewhat of a state of disrepair. So, that would need to be dealt with, either by repairs or a new gas chamber (or somehow retrofitting the current LI chamber for gas). A new gas chamber would cost six digits.

In Belarus, the method is quick and cheap. Arguably scary, but quick and cheap. Bullet to the back of the head.

[Minimalist]

I suppose that's valid, but can't LWOP and other terms be appealed just as hard?

Different standards in capital cases. Here.

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

there is a link to the full report at the bottom.

[Raeven]

I'm not shilling for the death penalty, but how does expense factor? I would think another 30+ years of three hots and a cot would cost more than the needle and the damage done.*



*Obligatory Neil Young reference.

That's not how it works, though. Going in, the minute the prosecution declares it is seeking a death verdict, defendant becomes eligible to have death-qualified counsel appointed. These guys are NOT cheap. Death cases are tried very differently than LWOP cases. The last death penalty case I did included the following expenses that would not have been included had the case proceeded as an LWOP:

1) Three defense attorneys, one death-qualified;
2) A change of venue to another county which included expenses to feed, house and transport all court staff (it was a pain in the ass living in 2 places for 4 months, I can tell you), defendant, attorneys, their support staff, etc.;
3) A death-qualified jury, meaning you have to find jurors who are willing to impose the death penalty if it is the jury's verdict (we went through nearly 2,000 prospective jurors, if I recall correctly);
4) Two phases of the trial, the guilt/innocence phase, and then the penalty phase.

In addition, the expert witnesses who were called to testify on both sides were massively expensive. One -- whose name may be known to you, Park Dietz -- cost $1,500 an hour, if memory serves.

These are costs that are NOT usually expended in a regular LWOP trial.

And this doesn't even count the costs of the MANDATORY appeals -- which are NOT mandatory in a regular LWOP trial.

So.... yes. The cost differences are massive. They are well documented for those who care to employ their own Google Fu.

[Captain Colostomy]

Thanks, y'all. That puts things in better perspective.

[Raeven]

I should add that this particular case took two and a half years to wend its way through the system to the actual trial because of all the extra evidentiary hearings that were required. In addition to those, we held quite a few hearings on the appropriate amount of media access to the evidence pre-trial, since we were still hoping to try the case in our own county (proved to be impossible, despite a gag order imposed as well as a confidential, non-public preliminary hearing).

That's another aspect of cost that is frequently overlooked: The minute the case becomes a death case, it's a spectator sport for the community and the media become inordinately interested. It's very hard to preserve a defendant's right to an impartial jury when everyone in town knows the case backwards and front. Much more security becomes necessary, too. All these extras cost.

[Autumnlicious]

I've always found it interesting how bizarrely people react when told "Three hots and a cot".

Like living in a cell is such a stimulating experience....

Or so easy.

And let's not forget being held in isolation for years at a time, prisoner gangs and rape.

Yeah, it seems like they're getting so well off. /s